Plan B on the Big Banks

by: Mike Lux

Tue May 05, 2009 at 12:00


Most of us who have been working on the banking issue from the restructuring side of things (meaning put the big banks into receivership and break them up into smaller components that are no longer too big to fail), including people I know far closer to the administration's economic team than I am, have come to the conclusion that the administration's policy regarding the big Wall Street financial institutions is fairly set for the time being.  There are a variety of reasons Obama has chosen this path - the fact that Geithner and Summers really believe it is better to resuscitate the big banks rather than to fundamentally restructure them, the belief  (reinforced by the Senate's recent failure on cramdown legislation) by senior administration officials that despite the populist anger among the general public that there is no political will in DC to take on the big banks, the reality that most of the media's shallow interpretation about whether something works is whether the Dow Jones goes up the day the plan is announced. But regardless of the reasons, this is the reality we are living with.  Obama has clearly chosen a path, and those of us with a different idea about how to work on these issues have to live with the fact that we have lost the debate, for now, inside the administration.  The question now is: what do we restructuring advocates do now?
Mike Lux :: Plan B on the Big Banks
I think there are two ways going forward that are constructive.  The first is to really invest in long-term organizing and institutional building on the finance issue.  While it is disappointing that Obama hasn't used this economic crisis and the populist anger it invoked to more fundamentally change the system that brought us to this pass, it's not like finance issues are going away or recede in importance in years to come.  Now is the time to build institutions with the grassroots, political, and intellectual firepower to battle the banks in the years to come.  We clearly have a stable of economists and business people who get what is going on, including George Soros, Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Dean Baker, Rob Johnson, Simon Johnson, Leo Hindery, and others.  What we need is long term institutional political power to build the constituency that will fight this fight effectively.

Just as importantly, we need to work constructively with the Obama administration to be prepared with a plan B if what they are doing begins to show significant weaknesses.  If, as we restructuring advocates fear, the Geithner/Summers plan does not work to rebuild the economy, and/or the plan is gamed by the big banks to create other AIG bonus style scandals, Obama will be forced to turn to a plan B.  If that happens, as I wrote a few weeks ago, progressives should avoid going into I-told-you-so mode, and instead be ready with a strong progressive plan that they can push with the administration.  The economic thinkers listed above ought to be working together right now to come up with a strong plan B option. If we can keep a constructive dialogue going with the White House, and mobilize our friends in Congress and in the media, such a plan has a chance of being adopted.  

For strong Obama supporters like me, watching the Geithner/Summers plan get put into place has been incredibly painful, because my highest political priority is to help Obama be a successful President, and I fear not only that this plan will not be a success, but that it will damage everything else Obama is trying to do.  But if the plan does fail, I am confident that Obama is a lot smarter and more pragmatic that George W. Bush, whose single-minded ideological blindness kept him marching straight forward without change no matter how disastrous his policies had become. Obama has the pragmatism to go to a plan B if Plan A isn't working, and progressives should be ready to work closely and constructively with him to create a good one.


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Instead of speculating about a done-deal with the banks... (4.00 / 2)
Shouldn't Mike Lux be trying to stop the appointment of Mignon Clyburn to the FCC, where she will inevitably try to abolish net neutrality?

Mignon Clyburn is absolutely nothing except Jim Clyburn's daughter, and yes indeed, I know she was publisher of the Coastal Times, always featured prominently in her bio, but I also know that the Coastal Times was a rag that was distributed free to area churches.

Mignon Clyburn is the poster-girl for ending net neutrality, just like her father... did I mention that her father is Jim Clyburn?... and what kind of excuse are Obama's friends getting ready to make when Obama totally screws all of us and gives the cable corporations and telecoms exactly what they want, like Democrats always give the telecoms whatever they want?

So here's an idea for Mike Lux:

Go get yourself arrested protesting Mignon Clyburn's appointment to the FCC!

Chain your butt to the White House gate!

Former advisor to Obama's transition team arrested in FCC protest!

What a beautiful headline!

(Sales of your book would also zoooom!)

The time is now!

Go directly to jail! Do not pass Go! Do not collect $200!

Save the internet from Mignon Clyburn!


Did you forget (4.00 / 1)
to include a link on why this Mignon Clyburn is so bad and why you are so certain of what she intends to do that you are ready to urge Mike Lux to drop whatever he is doing and go to jail for it?

I'm not saying this information doesn't exist, but you haven't provided it to us.  The links you do provide are just boilerplate wikipedia about her father.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.


[ Parent ]
The telecoms have seduced the Black Caucus (4.00 / 2)
I ran into this when trying to lobby my otherwise-excellent Representative John Lewis. It is really frustrating. Net Neutrality is the most important issue there is. It affects all others. All progressive gains during the last four years would not have been possible without the single mass communication medium that is not controlled by corporate wealth. Net Neutrality is "do or die" for our democracy.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
One question... (0.00 / 0)
How did they do seduce them?  

[ Parent ]
The usual (0.00 / 0)
Campaign contributions, jobs for staffers and family members. But they also sponsor events related to Black History Month and civil rights. Not that there's anything wrong with that by itself, but it should not be buying them an end to Net Neutrality.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
Clyburn (0.00 / 0)
It's not as clear to me as it apparently is to you that Clyburn is bad on net neutrality, and as good as Obama has always been on that issue, I'm doubting that he would nominate someone who would be bad on that issue.
Besides, the banking issue seems to me to be a pretty big damn deal.

[ Parent ]
Clyburn and House Amendment 987 (2006) (0.00 / 0)
About Clyburn...

In 2006, Representative Clyburn voted against H. Amdt. 987 to ensure that network neutrality clauses be added to the Title VII of the Communication Act of 1934. The amendment required all broadband service provides to "operate its broadband network in a nondiscriminatory manner so that any person can offer or provide content, applications, and services through, or over, such broadband network with equivalent or better capability than the provider extends to itself or affiliated parties, and without the imposition of a charge for such nondiscriminatory network operation."

This was a very big deal, in case you don't remember.

Mignon Clyburn is nothing except Jim Clyburn's daughter, and she will not stand up for net neautrality!

Chris Bowers already wrote about Mignon Clyburn...

There is a disturbing possibility that President Obama has put his excellent open media and network neutrality platform at risk with his latest--and last--Democratic FCC appointment, Mignon Clyburn.

There are five seats in the FCC, and "only three commissioners may be members of the same political party." For the next five years, the FCC will have a 3-2 Democratic majority, once the remaining Republican open seat has been filled. That makes this appointment by President Obama the key swing vote that will largely determine FCC policy and regulation over the next five years.

The reason Mignon Clyburn is such a worrying pick is that she is the daughter of South Carolina Representative James Clyburn, who has an anti-Net Neutrality record.

But a few diaries on the blogs won't stop Mignon Clyburn.

Mike Lux should protest until he gets arrested, instead of writing about the bailout after the barn already burned down.

Save the internet from Mignon Clyburn!



[ Parent ]
Since building longterm infrastructure has (0.00 / 0)
been a constant refrain for 5-6 years now, I don't know if that represents new thinking.

I think we need to focus on mass resistance.  Something that has not been tried.


Infrastructure on the banking issue (0.00 / 0)
is much weaker than it is on many other progressive issues.

[ Parent ]
Good answer to my question (0.00 / 0)
from your diary yesterday.  So - what is Plan B, as you see it?  If it is to enlist Krugman, et al, that sounds good to me, if doable.

Having said that, I don't think that anyone on your list is leftist enough to solve the basic problems.  Our plan should include socializing more than a few banks and intend to last longer than some temporary, re-stabilization period.  

We need to socialize every economic system and engine that has been 'commoditized' (undifferentiated products in an oligopolistic market).  Currently, that includes most banking functions, insurance, basic steel, basic aluminum, power generation, fuels, and public transportation (air travel).  (Of course, it could be said of most consumer goods, television shows, trucks, automobiles, and refrigerators without stretching the definition too far.  But such decisions depend on political thresholds in times of relative economic stability, as opposed to our contemporary economic life-or-death struggle.)

Of course, socialism to this degree would depend on an activist government and a willing electorate.  Seems to me that this goal should inform our study and our outreach.

By the way - did I mention that I'm running for president?


My fear is that nothing will change in the financial sector. (4.00 / 3)
We are fighting to preserve the status quo. In fact there was a Bloomberg article this morning in a way confirming my fears.  We are reverting back to the same securitization model that got us into this mess but this time with government subsidies.

I agree that those of us who have advocated for restructuring of the financial sector have lost the battle and I agree we that if things do turn for the worst under Geithner Plan then we cannot afford to say "we told you so".  Fortunately, there is an existing foundation for Plan B and they are credit unions (although I am not happy with their position on Cramdown). They are grassroots and community based and we should focus our efforts in organizing more credit unions.  We need to also focus on financial literacy - make sure if people are going to operate in this game the financial sector created that we know the rules and how to play.  The foundation is there for a Plan B.


RebelCapitalist - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.


See Roubiani (4.00 / 4)
in the Wall Street Journal this morning:

Is there anything more important in solving the financial crisis than creating a law (an "insolvency regime law") that empowers the government to handle complex financial institutions in receivership? Congress should pass such legislation -- as requested by the administration -- on a fast-track basis.

The mere threat of this law could be a powerful catalyst in aligning incentives. As the potential costs of receivership are quite high, it would obviously be optimal if the bank's liabilities could be restructured outside of bankruptcy.


The Administration is actually ASKING for a mechanism to implement Plan B if what they are doing doesn't work.   Right now the alternative is receivership, which the Fed has correctly avoided.

Pass Requested Legislation (0.00 / 0)
This is the answer to "what to do now".  Currently, the administration does not even have the power to do what we want.  We need to apply as much pressure on congress as we can to get this legislation passed.

[ Parent ]
Didn't avoid it with the autos. (0.00 / 0)
Chrysler's in bankruptcy, and the smart money is on GM to follow.  If they could do it to the autos, why can do it to the banks.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
There is no equivelent (4.00 / 1)
to Chapter 11 for banks.  Receivership is really like Chapter 13.  

[ Parent ]
don't think these are "mass resistance" issues (4.00 / 5)
I think the reason we aren't winning the "take the banks into receivership now" vs. "let's try some other stuff first" debate is mostly an inside baseball failure.    

How do we ensure that our preferred experts/policy wonks (in this case Krugman, Stiglitz, etc. vs. Summers, Geither, etc) get hired when Democrats are in the White House?  This is not really solved by better grassroots organizing. I think it's largely related to continuing to build up institutions like Center for American Progress and doing more to get the most esteemed experts like Krugman (who will almost certainly continue to be based at universities and not DC think thanks) plugged into the DC scene.  That presumably gets elected Dems more comfortable with these guys and helps put them in line for jobs.



I don't think we can have think tanks like the right (0.00 / 0)
 or the "center."We just don't have that much cash.  We need to provide a coherent threat of some sort in form of civil disobedience, boycotts, or strategic intra AND third party challenges.

I take back what I said about confining the republicans to the South.  I think a populist style progressive would do well down there, even better than a dlc dem, but the dlc dems stand in the way of any sort of party advancement for progressives.


[ Parent ]
. (0.00 / 0)
Civil disobedience over a wonky policy approach?

Riiiiiiiiiight.


[ Parent ]
I don't think we have any control over who a candidate chooses (0.00 / 0)
as an adviser.  No.   I don't think we ever will.   The only time he is going to listen to us on these things is if we can damage his political interests.

[ Parent ]
and that's how we got Nixon (0.00 / 0)


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
That's how we got civil rights too. (0.00 / 0)
.

[ Parent ]
And that's also how LBJ got civil rights and Medicare. (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
Bank Boycotts? (4.00 / 1)
I saw this on another thread somewhere. Why not? Campaign to get folks to pull their accounts from the banks that should be broken up and put it in those financial institutions that are more solvent because of better planning and less risky behavior. Even include executive compensation plans as criteria, for those that would rather employ the services of the more sane type of investing.  

Such could dove-tail with the Plan B discussion because if the banks currently being bailed out lose customers, Plan A will fail.

I'm not sure what kind of civil disobedience you mean. Sit-ins in bank lobbies? Chaining ourselves to amoured cars? Can you be more specific?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Yes, that would be a great idea! (4.00 / 1)
My father pulled out of Wells Fargo!

Yes, sitins are good, but only if they are so massive the police don't have the jail space to arrest everyone.  Street Blockages are good too.  Particularly around places like the stock exchange.


[ Parent ]
And I think it also involves not going ga-ga over candidates (4.00 / 3)
that are obviously not going to agree with us in the long term.

This set of policy decisions from Obama is not exactly surprising, given what he actually said during the campaign.  He was already closely associated with Summers-types.  He didn't have to distance himself from them during the primaries/general in order to get progressive grassroots support, and so he legitimately thinks it isn't important that he continues to empower these people.  


[ Parent ]
He is rhetorically progressive (4.00 / 1)
 but his record in shabby.  His rhetorical progressivism is a form of pr, which is mostly always misleading in my opinion.  Hope and change were always concepts to vague for me to warm up to him. I never went ga-ga, but many did.

[ Parent ]
Let's kill two birds with one stone (4.00 / 2)
Obama had Krugman and Stiglitz to dinner recently

Thom Hartmann has 'Lunch with Bernie' (i.e., Senator Sanders) every Friday. (During our lunch time, or thereabouts. They're not actually eating.

What I'd like to see is a meeting of the best economic minds, say once every 3 weeks for 3 or 4 hours. Not just Krugman and Stiglitz, but a whole bunch of economic smarties, that actually value human life and community. Call this group of economist/luminaries the Citizen's Economic Brain Trust (CEBT, hereafter). Unlike Geitherner's plotting (yes, that's a loaded word!), these conversations would be open, and downloadable as podcasts. Due to the wonders of the internet, the members of the CEBT can argue and discuss from the comfort of their own homes.

Inevitably, during the discussions, real differences of opinion would emerge that would require research to help resolve. And that is the first interface of this CEBT,  that will establish a working relationship with a portion of the netroots. The qualified portion of the netroots will do the research, post it on wikis, etc., in a timely fashion, as directed by the CEBT.

As research is returned to the CEBT, and further discussion take place, hopefully points of concensus will occur. Here comes the second instance of a direct working relationship with a portion of the netroots: The CEBT can outline a plan, which a qualified portion of the netroots, who actually understand economic and legal issues deeply, can then write up formally, as if they were legal documents. The documents that they produce should be "shovel-ready", if you will: On the one hand, legislative bills that could just be handed to Congress to vote on (you know, theoretically). On the other hand, whatever executive branch documents might be required in a real life version, which could (theoretically) be handed to President Obama to sign.

So, so far we have these analogous organizational entities:

CEBT  ---------------------------  Secretary of Treasury
Qualified Netroots --------------  Congressional Staff

What is missing?

What is missing is an umpire between the members of the CEBT. Somebody who has to adjudicate between honest differences of opinion of the stellar members of the CEBT. Somebody has to be, as President Bush would say, "the Decider Man". So, what's missing is a President to sit in on these economic discussions. The final structure is thus

President X ---------------------  President Obama
CEBT  ---------------------------  Secretary of Treasury
Qualified Netroots --------------  Congressional Staff

The fastest way to decide who is President X is to let the CEBT decide. In future parallel government projects such as the one I am outlining here, maybe the netroots, as a whole, could nominate and vote on who gets to be President. The only requirement I would have for President X is that it be somebody who had served in the Federal Government at a high level.

As for who I would recommend that the CEBT at least consider to be President X - I hereby nominate Al Gore.


DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org


Sorry, should have made clear what the "2nd bird" is (4.00 / 1)
The "2nd" bird is the more general process of having an open government, with public-minded citizens  having a hand in writing legislation (instead of paid corporate lobbyists, as they did when Bush was President). We should be doing stuff like this, anyway. Obama being so bad on the economic front can thus be viewed as a blessing in disguise, if we constructively channel our frustration resulting from his dancing the Wall Street jig, into democracy-friendly structures which should have been developed, already.

If large segments of the population will watch dreadfully boring "reality TV" shows, I could see substantial numbers tuning in to watch a semi-real President X meet with some of the best economic minds in the world. Especially if the economy collapses, it will put additional pressure on Obama to do the right thing, as many citizens will already know about options he had, but rejected.

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org


[ Parent ]
Don't primary 'em (0.00 / 0)
Third-party 'em.

The banksters are running the country through the finance faction of the FKD. This is not soluble.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


but be smart about third partying (4.00 / 1)
only in places where you favor a republican.

If it is a nader strategy.  I'm out.


[ Parent ]
Nader had a strategy? (4.00 / 1)
What was it?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Put Bush in power, kill lots of people, etc. (4.00 / 3)
VERY effective strategy.

[ Parent ]
Do you actually believe that was Nader's strategy (0.00 / 0)
or simply the unintended outcome of having no real electoral strategy?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
No, that wasn't the strategy. (4.00 / 3)
Just the easily predictable results.

[ Parent ]
Nader ran in states where he could play spoiler (0.00 / 0)
.  Not smart.  I want a smart their party that won't tip the scale toward the republicans ever.

[ Parent ]
What's the point of not running in every state? (0.00 / 0)
Its like admitting you're planning on losing.  Inane political strategy.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Primaries are much, MUCH better than third parties (0.00 / 0)
Third parties have never demonstrated the slightest ability help improve this country.  Primaries, on the other hand, have proved to be very effective.

We have plenty of good Democrats that prove the party can tackle these problems, we just don't have enough of them in the Senate.


[ Parent ]
Very effective at maintaining the status quo (0.00 / 0)
and blunting any radical changes in our governmental system, that is.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Look at the House (0.00 / 0)
The House is fine.  Only the Senate poses any real roadblocks.  That should prove that party isn't the real issue.

Of course, party will never be the real issue, no matter the situation.  It is the people.  Replace the people with better people and, ta da!, better party.

Have you ever seen any hint at all that a third party could actually help this country?  I mean really help, not just improve one's ability to day dream about possible changes.  Sure, replace Senator Democrat X with Green Party Y and that slot improves.  But the same can happen if Y runs as a Democrat.  AND, the odds of throwing the election to Republican Z goes down to basically zero.


[ Parent ]
Why is the House fine? (4.00 / 1)
DId they leave impeachment on the table in 2006?

Did they do anything while Bush was in power than write sternly worded letters?

Did they give people a bailout NOW NOW NOW along with the banks?

What on earth is your definition of "fine"?

I personally don't like the idea... But I'm driven to it by circumstance. People like Simon Johnson and Paul Krugman ask the question "Who's running the country?" and they answer "The banks.": And the FKD is helping them do it.

(Incidentally, if you check your history, many of the programs FDR put in place were originated by populists in non-party and third party contexts. So, yes, I'd say that's a definition of "actually help." Of course, if you have your country confused with your party, that may not be evident.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


[ Parent ]
Third Party (0.00 / 0)
(Incidentally, if you check your history, many of the programs FDR put in place were originated by populists in non-party and third party contexts. So, yes, I'd say that's a definition of "actually help." Of course, if you have your country confused with your party, that may not be evident.)

The ideas may have originated with third parties, but they weren't implemented that way, right?  And you certainly don't need a party to create ideas, nor do I think the lack of ideas is much of an issue today.

But the assumption that a third party would magically be immune to money and other corruptions found in Washington is frankly quite quaint.  They might be immune now, but that is because they have no power.  A third party might be better for a few years, but soon it would become establishment just like the others.  That is how power always works.

In my opinion, third parties are nothing but a big distraction.  They let people dream of utopia without actually trying to fix the real problems.

We already have a primary system.  We already have all the tools necessary to improve the system and the people in power.  If these third party candidates can't even when a Democratic primary, then clearly they are useless in the general.


[ Parent ]
And so what? (4.00 / 1)
If, as Simon Johnson, Paul Krugman, and others are are saying. the banks are running the country -- and it's hard to think of a nore clear demonstration of that then getting a bailout with no transparency, no accountability, and no consequences for failure at all -- then they they are doing it through the Democratic party, since they control both the executive and the legislative branches of government. That, to me, indicates that the two-party system is irrevocably broken, and something new has to be tried. I'm all for primary challenges -- anything to shove the Overton Window left -- but if whacking the donkey over the head with a 2x4 is the only way to get its attention, then so be it.

Two other points:

1, Those who are chanting Nader, Nader aren't looking at history, Today, the Republicans are devolving into a rump regional party (and the only thing that could bring them back from the dead is a successful campaign of right wing populism, a scenario the FKD, with its embrace of Big Money, seems determined to enable.) These are not the days of Bush v. Gore! So, let the Democratic Party split naturally into its two factions -- the faction that's working for the few who hold the mortgages, and the faction that works for the many who own the houses. I know which side I'm on.

2. Mark made a claim that was demonstrably false: "Third parties have never demonstrated the slightest ability help improve this country. " I refuted the claim by looking to history. Mark, rather than answer the new argument, shifts to a new argument: "The ideas may have originated with third parties...." Good. Now that we're both agreed that third parties are OK in principle we can go forward. Mark finishes the shift by claiming that ideas can orginaate anywhere, and that therefore third parties are not necessary. To which I would respond: Sure, in academic fantasies or tendentious debating points. In fact, people decide to work in new structures precisely because they do not believe, but know, that their ideas will not be heard by everyone. Or is Mark so naive as to believe that at the "big table" of the admininstration, everybody's ideas will be heard?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


[ Parent ]
Parties (0.00 / 0)
I'm all in favor of groups or coalitions forming to generate ideas, build support and so on.  If these groups want to call themselves "parties" then fine.  Whatever.

But that isn't the point, is it?  By "party" I assume we are talking about people who choose to run for office outside of the Democratic or Republican parties.  I see no evidence of running third party candidates has ever really helped a cause and you failed to provide any evidence to the contrary.

Heck, I'll take it a step further.  If I had money, I'd be far more likely to donate to a conservative third party then a liberal.  I love it when the Constitution party draws votes away from Democrats.

I think it is terribly naive to think what separates the Democrats from some theoretical liberal party in power is fixable by the parting being "new".  Once people get into power, the powerful get involved.  The system has serious problems that cannot be addressed by changing a party.  At the end of the day, all you did is change a name.

The real structural problems are not within the Democratic party they are within the larger system.  And the problems that are within the Democratic party are much easier to fix from the inside than to replace whole and cloth, which I see zero evidence will ever work within our lifetimes.

Seriously, what exactly do you think this mythical third party could accomplish and how, exactly, would it do it?  I hear and see nothing.

On the other hand, running better candidates in primaries against Democrats has a proven record of working.  Just look at the results demonstrated by the Republicans, where the Club for Growth has been amazingly successful.

Why bring up this administration at all?  We are talking about applying pressure over the long term, right?  Or were you planning of running Samantha Stevens and Hermione Granger, where they can just twitch their nose and wave their wand to make everything better in a couple days?


[ Parent ]
Feh (0.00 / 0)
Another statement from Mark that is demonstrably false. He burbles: "I see no evidence of running third party candidates has ever really helped a cause and you failed to provide any evidence to the contrary."

Look up the histories of the Progressive, Populist, Socialist -- and heck, even Communist -- parties in the United States and then get back to me.

As I said above -- ignored by you, oddly, or not -- now that the Republicans are turning into a rump regional party, let the Democratic Party split into two parties, each representing the factions now co-existing uneasily within in: The Finance Wing, which runs the adminitration on behalf of the large banks, and the rest of us.

I know which part I'd be in. Which part would you be in, Mark?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


[ Parent ]
Why are Democrats and Republicans so special? (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
I'd say that sticking with the two party tyranny (0.00 / 0)
allows the "opposition" party to provide the illusion of change and progress, while basically running on the basis of not being a member of the other, "ruling" party.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
It would be resistent not immune. (0.00 / 0)
.  simply because they initially wouldn't be as corrupted as establishment incumbents.

[ Parent ]
No, the system is structured to blunt the effectiveness of alternative parties (0.00 / 0)
so, of course, "third" parties are ineffective.

By the way, your hypothetical implies that the candidate "Green Party Y" is every bit as self-promoting as Senator Specter, simply switch party brand to position themself to better get elected. What if that candidate actually has a valid reason for staying in the Green Party, and not selling out to become a Democrat?  Such dedication has no place in the two party tryranny, does it?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
I'm assuming that it is the people that count.  I am assuming that just because someone is running under a different party name that doesn't make that person any better or worse.

The example works the other way around, as well.  Why not just run Y as a Democrat.  Where, exactly, does the new party provide magic ponies?

Ok, I should stop being so rude.  But seriously, I don't get this at all.  At the end of the day, I see a successful third part formation as being nothing more than a really elaborate, painful name change.


[ Parent ]
Why not run as a Democrat? (0.00 / 0)
Because the person is a member of the Green Party.

Maybe we don't agree because I think one's party should reflect their political ideals. So switching parties solely to get elected is like selling out your ideals for political power. But I guess that my quaint notions of party affiliation and ideals are not all that relevant to the two mainstream parties, eh?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
2 parties (0.00 / 0)
While it is true the Democrats and Republicans have made it harder for third parties to run, the real reason we have two parties is because our entire system of government encourages that result.  It wasn't on purpose (the founding fathers hated parties) but it was the result.  Countries that have many parties tend to be countries with parliamentary governments.

If we had automatic runoff elections we might be able to get that here.  But until that day the best strategy will always be to get 50%+ for a single candidate and not spread your vote among several.  That leads to two parties.

Having a party that better shares your ideals is great for what it is, I guess, but without that 50%+, it is nearly worthless at actually affecting change.

Now, there are different ways you can divide the country into two chunks.  Right now we have liberal versus conservative, but you could theoretically have populist versus libertarian as well.  I'm sure there are plenty of other dividing lines.

But I don't see anything the Green Party supports that doesn't fall under the Democratic half of popular opinion.  Thus, I don't see the point.


[ Parent ]
The "Green Party" candidate was a hypothetical that you created (0.00 / 0)
I was working within that hypothetical situation.

You are correct. We have a two party system. That system is what blunts the effectiveness of alternative parties moreso than any "failing" on behalf of the alternative party candidates.

All your dividing of the populace into "two chunks" only goes to show how deeply ingrained the diacotomy imposed by the two party system tyranny has become in your mind. Where you see a series of pairs, I see a continuum of political thought and conviction. A spectrum better fit by MORE parties rather than being forced to choose which principles to compromise by wedging oneself into either of the "Big Tents".

One caveat: Alternative parties can be effective, even within the two party system, if they can break apart one or both of the M$P and force an abrupt change.  This is relevant to the "progressives" because they are faced with just this dilemna: stay in the Democratic party and continue to get sold-out by the "bi-partisans" and "conservative Dems", or create a new party that actively seeks to break the Democratic Party and replace it while forcing a definite shift to the Left.

To continue on the Green Party hypothetical, I contend that you have the equation backwards. Its not so much that the M$P (Democratic Party in this case) can represent the Green Party interests, as it is what OTHER issues the Democratic Party might support (DOMA, FISA, etc) that those with the sensitivities and convictions of their alternative party (Green in this hypothetical) might not chose to support by switching parties.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Third Parties can do things (4.00 / 2)
Mainly kill an existing party like Free Soilers did to the Whigs, leading to the birth of the Republican Party.

A strong third party challenge from the left, if successful, could demolish the Democratic Party, just like a libertarian counter from the right might blow up the Republican Party.

A permanent third party isn't a legitimate goal.  A third party movement is just a vehicle for destroying the status quo and drawing a new line of cleavage between two parties.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
yes, that's true. (0.00 / 0)
.

I admit to wanting to redraw the lines.

It would only destroy dems if the greens failed to enact instant runoff voting after elected.  Though it might render the republicans  a southern only party.


[ Parent ]
Exactly! (0.00 / 0)
That is the best way to use alternative parties in a two party system.

And, no, such did not appear to be the goal of Mr. Nader (or Mr. Perot, for that matter). As he had no real, long term goal, Mr. Nader had no effective strategy.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue. (0.00 / 0)
Owner: What's, uh...What's wrong with it?

Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!

Owner: No, no, 'e's uh, ...he's resting.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


Perhaps this is obvious (0.00 / 0)
but more than anything, we have to set the frame, so that we can take advantage of their failure. Otherwise, the libertarians will rush in and use it as an opportunity to move things in their direction.

Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search